PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

reassessment proceedings. Copy of the same was provided to the assessee vide order sheet entry dated 28/07/2016 by the A.O. The assessee firm vide letter dated 17.08.2016 submitted to the A.O. that they have no objection for the re-assessment proceedings. Subsequently, the A.O. issued notice u/s. 143(2) 142(1) requiring the assessee firm to furnish various details

JATINKUMAR PATEL,CHHATRAL KALOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 263 as well as consequential orders passed subsequent to revision proceeding are Null and VOID and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The same please be held accordingly. 5. The order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held

NIRANJANBHAI D. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

147, as it was found that the assessee had purchased immovable properties aggregating to Rs.1,10,75,262/- during the financial year 2010–11, which were not disclosed in the return filed for A.Y. 2011–12. The details of the land purchases were collated from registered sale deeds and included Rs.72,72,517/-, Rs.4,12,924/-, and Rs.33

NIRANJANBHAI D. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

147, as it was found that the assessee had purchased immovable properties aggregating to Rs.1,10,75,262/- during the financial year 2010–11, which were not disclosed in the return filed for A.Y. 2011–12. The details of the land purchases were collated from registered sale deeds and included Rs.72,72,517/-, Rs.4,12,924/-, and Rs.33

NIRANJANBHAI D. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

147, as it was found that the assessee had purchased immovable properties aggregating to Rs.1,10,75,262/- during the financial year 2010–11, which were not disclosed in the return filed for A.Y. 2011–12. The details of the land purchases were collated from registered sale deeds and included Rs.72,72,517/-, Rs.4,12,924/-, and Rs.33

INFINITY BUILDCOM,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABNAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 69 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact by passing an ex parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” Infinity Buildcom vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2– 3. At the outset, we note that the present appeal is time barred by 60 days